9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel and considered the affidavit filed on the question of sentence. 2.Section 135 of the Customs Act provides that if any person is concerned in carrying or in any manner dealing with goods which he knows or reason to believe are liable to confiscation, he shall be punishable, in the case of an offence relating to goods to which Section 123 applies and the market price whereof exceeds Rs. 1 lac, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. It is also provided that in absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment by the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year (at the relevant time). Sub-section (3) declares that the first offence, or confiscation, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undergone some substantial sentence; and a fine of Rs. 1,500/- was enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- on each count and failing the payment of fine, the Supreme Court provided for imprisonment of one year and three months on each count. In this case, the Supreme Court has followed the earlier judgment in the case of Inder (supra). In that case also, the facts are not mentioned and the gravity is also not shown, but the sentence of two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- was reduced to fine of Rs. 15,000/- on each count and total being Rs. 30,000/- and in default, imprisonment of six months on each count. This was also in the light of the sentence already undergone. In the present case, the accused have not undergone any sentence. 6.In the latest case dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Counsel for the appellants." 7.The learned Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in view of the liberalisation of economic policies, a lenient view be taken. Having considered the submissions and the affidavits, we are of the opinion that the magnitude of the offence of carrying and transporting contraband goods of Rs. 27 lacs is serious enough for not awarding any sentence less than the minimum. Really speaking, the question that has to be considered in such a case is why the Court should not impose more sentence because the law at that time provided for maximum sentence of five years. However, in view of some of the circumstances relied upon by the accused, the Court may not impose sentence more than the minimum prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
